[DOCKET # OCN CANC 0129.

  March 10, 2011.]

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF

CERTIFICATES OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOAs) AND
TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE AFFECTING LOT NOS. 3664
AND 3843 COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE NOS.
154516-R AND 154515-R OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
PAMPANGA IN THE NAME OF SPOUSES ELIGIO P. MALLARI AND
MARCELINA I. MALLARI
 

SPOUSES ELIGIO P. MALLARI AND MARCELINA I.

MALLARI, petitioners, vs. NOEL MANALO, JONER QUIAMBAO,
REYNALDO MARZAN, BERNABE MANALO, MANUEL JACINTO,
HAZEL GALANG, JOSE VITAL, JR., JAIME VITAL, JESSIE DELA
PEÑA, GERRY GUEVARRA, HANSEL GALANG, INOCENCIO
GALANG, BERNARDO MANALO, MENARDO MANALO, ABNER
BACANI, JAYSON BACANI, JAIME GARCIA, LEONARDO QUIAMBAO,
MANUEL PANGILINAN, CARLOS MADLAMBAYAN, JOSE DELA
PEÑA, MELANIO SERRANO, LORETO SERRANO, CHRISTOPHER
SERRANO, ORLANDO PANGILINAN, EDWIN BACANI, ALEXANDER
BACANI, HENRY E. DE MESA, ROGELIO T. MANALO, CONRADO M.
CARREON, CRISANTO C. MALLARI, JUNE M. JACINTO, EDUARDO Q.
DE MESA, RAFAEL D. MANALO, ISIDRO V. MANALO, ROGELIO T.
MANALO, ALFREDO J. TORNO, TERESITA T. MANALO, LIEZEL M. DE
GUZMAN, FRANKLIN M. SERRANO, MAMERTO M. PANGILINAN,
VICENTE G. MALLARI, JR., ALFRED M. DE GUZMAN, JOEWER M.
SERRANO, SUZETTE M. GARCIA, ARTHUR M. PANGILINAN,
REYNALDO T. YUMUL, VENANCIO S. MANIAGO, ALFREDO A.
MANARANG, ARCELI A. MANARANG, LORENZANA M. MAGAT,
ROBERTO V. ARCIGA, ALFREDO M. CATACUTAN, DOMINGO J.
VITAL, MYRA G. PILI, CARLOS M. MAGAT, NIXON A. VITAL,
LORENZANO M. MAGAT, EDGARDO C. CATACUTAN, PACITA C.
CATACUTAN, SONNY E. DE MESA, BETTY V. DE JESUS, respondents,
 
 

THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA, nominal party respondent.

 

ORDER
 

Just as it is with the courts, the duty to protect the underprivileged

should not be carried out to such an extent as to deny justice to the
landowner whenever truth and justice happen to be on his side.  1

For resolution by this Office is a Petition  seeking the cancellation

2 

of a total of ninety-seven (97) Certificates of Land Ownership Award

(CLOAs) and their respective Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs)
covering the following landholdings and issued to the following farmer
beneficiaries (FBs), to wit:
 …

The origin of the instant case is an agrarian dispute older than

the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) itself which has
been the subject of a protracted and intense legal battle fought in
numerous tribunals, including the Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB), Regional Trial Courts, Court of Appeals,
and Supreme Court.
This Petition involves two (2) tracts of land known as Lot No.
3664 with an area of 130.7999 hectares and Lot No. 3843 with an area
of 0.6388 hectares, both of the San Fernando Cadastre and located at
Barrio Maimpis, San Fernando, Pampanga. Both lots were originally
owned by spouses Roberto and Asuncion Wijangco (Spouses
Wijangco) under TCT No. 27507-R of the Registry of Deeds of
Pampanga. Spouses Wijangco mortgaged the lots along with other
lands they owned to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to secure a
loan. Eventually, for their failure to pay said loan, the PNB foreclosed
the mortgage. In the auction sale that followed, the PNB, being the
highest bidder, acquired the lots and was issued a Certificate of Sale.
Upon failure of Spouses Wijangco to redeem the lots, ownership
thereof was consolidated in the PNB. Several land titles were then
issued to it by the Register of Deeds. Among those titles were TCT No.
154516-R  covering Lot No. 3664 and TCT No. 154515-R. 
3  4

On July 10, 1980, PNB executed a Deed of Promise to Sell in

favor of Spouses Eligio P. Mallari and Marcelina I. Mallari (Spouses
Mallari) covering two (2) parcels of land, Lots 3664 and 3843. The
contract provided that PNB shall retain ownership and title to the lots
until the Spouses Mallari shall have paid the last installment.
On July 22, 1981, the tenants of Lot No. 3664 tried to redeem it
at P5,000.00 per hectare. The spouses declined the offer, prompting
the tenants to file a case for redemption with the Court of Agrarian
Relations (CAR) docketed as Agrarian Case No. 1908 (Redemption
Case). After the abolition of the CAR, the case was automatically
absorbed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46 at San
Fernando, Pampanga. The case was elevated all the way up to the
Supreme Court. On March 20, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in favor
of the tenants, as follows:
"WHEREFORE:
1.      The petitions of spouses Mallari in G.R. Nos.
106615, 109452, 109978 and 139379 are DENIED and the
assailed Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP CAR
No. 25209, CA-G.R. SP No. 30085, CA-G.R. SP-No. 30887 and
CA-G.R. SP Case No. 36100 are AFFIRMED;
2.      The petition of Arcega, et al., in G.R. No. 108591 is
GRANTED and the appealed RTC Orders dated November 3,
1992, November 12, 1992, December 2, 1992 and January 14,
1993 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
3.      The RTC is ORDERED to implead the LBP in
Agrarian Case No. 1908;
 4.      Agrarian Case No. 1908 is REMANDED to the
RTC, Branch 46, San Fernando Pampanga for further
proceedings with dispatch; and
5.      The RTC is further ORDERED to submit to this
Court a progress report of the status of Agrarian Case No. 1908
every 3 months until this Court's Decision is fully implemented.
SO ORDERED."
However, acting upon the Motion for Reconsideration of Spouses
Mallari, the Supreme Court reversed itself in its Resolution dated
January 15, 2004 wherein it rendered the following judgment, to wit:
"WHEREFORE, the instant motion for reconsideration
filed by spouses Mallari is GRANTED and our assailed Decision
dated March 20, 2002 in these consolidated cases is
RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE. The "Certification To
Finance Redemption Of Estate Under R.A. No. 3844, As
Amended," dated January 15, 1982 issued by the Land Bank of
the Philippines is declared VOID, being in violation of Section
12, R.A. 3844, as amended, and Land Bank Circular Letter No.
3 dated February 25, 1980. The Decision of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 46, San Fernando, Pampanga (acting as an
Agrarian Court) in Agrarian Case No. 1908 dismissing the
petition for redemption filed by Ignacio Arcega, et al., is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
The said Resolution became final and executory on July 21,
2004, as evidenced by an Entry of Judgment  to that effect.
5 

However, in November 1989, during the pendency of the

Redemption Case filed by the tenants, Spouses Mallari filed a suit for
ejectment before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
for Pampanga against the tenants on Lot No. 3664 on the ground of
non-payment of lease rentals. The said cases were docketed as
DARAB Case Nos. 144-P'89 — 160-P'89 (Ejectment Cases). On June
5, 1991, the PARAD rendered a Decision  ordering the ejectment of the
6 

tenants for non-payment of the stipulated lease rentals for the years
1983 until 1989. Presumably, due to the pendency of the Redemption
Case, a Writ of Execution in the Ejectment Cases was only ordered
issued in an Order dated December 29, 2004.  On January 5, 2005, the
7 

Writ of Execution  was duly issued by the PARAD and duly

8 

implemented on January 7, 2005, per the Implementation Report  dated 9 

January 10, 2005 by the DARAB Sheriff for Region III.

On January 22, 1991, Spouses Mallari tendered the payment of
P6,330,132.71 to PNB by way of Prudential Manager's Check Nos.
034800 and 035060 to pay for the balance on the Deed of Promise to
Sell and the accrued interest thereon. However, on April 15, 1991, the
Board of Directors of PNB deferred action on their offer due to the
pendency of the Redemption Case. After the judgment in the
Redemption Case had become final and executory, Spouses Mallari
filed a case for consignation on July 10, 2006 with the RTC Branch 215
of Quezon City (Consignation Case), docketed as Civil Case No. Q-06-
58366, to compel PNB to accept the payment tendered and to execute
the corresponding deed of conveyance covering Lots Nos. 3664 and
3843 in their favor. In a Resolution  dated January 22, 2008, the RTC
10 

ruled in favor of Spouses Mallari declaring the consignation valid and

ordered PNB to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale over Lots Nos.
3664 and 3843 in favor of Spouses Mallari. A Writ of Execution   dated 11

May 26, 2008 was issued implementing the judgment of the RTC. The
Consignation Case was elevated to the Court of Appeals by PNB by
way of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, where it was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 106838. In a
Decision  dated August 11, 2009, the Fourth Division of the Court of
12 

Appeals denied the Petition for Certiorari of PNB for failing to show that
the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion. No appeal was
taken from the Decision of the Court of Appeals; thus, an Entry of Final
Judgment  was issued rendering the judgment in the Consignation
13 

Case final and executory.

However, to allegedly subvert the implementation of the Supreme
Court Decision in the Redemption Case, the tenants and their
descendants filed for CARP coverage of Lots Nos. 3664 and 3843. The
application was vehemently protested by Spouses Mallari in their letter
dated January 10, 2005, arguing that the subject property had been
reclassified to residential land prior to the effectivity of the CARP on
June 15, 1988. Invoking rulings of  National Housing Authority v.
Allarde  and Natalia Realty Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform  as
14  15 

well as Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990,

Spouses Mallari vigorously argued that the subject landholding was
already exempt from CARP coverage, and thus, the DAR has no
jurisdiction to cover the property under CARP and that the CLOAs
issued to FBs are null and void ab initio. To bolster their claim that the
subject landholdings are exempted from CARP, Spouses Mallari
submitted the following documents:
1.         Application for Subdivision  dated May 11, 1981
16 

filed with the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission

(HSRC), now the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) covering Lot No. 3664;
2.         Approved Preliminary and Locational
Clearance  issued on January 8, 1988;
17 

3.         Approved HLURB Development  Permit issued on

18 

March 4, 1988;
4.         Certification  dated June 11, 1998 by HLURB
19 

Regional Officer Amado V. Diaz; and

5.         Certification  dated September 23, 2005 by
20 

HLURB Regional Officer Editha U. Barrameda.

Notwithstanding the protest by Spouses Mallari, the DAR
Regional Director (RD) for Region III, Narciso B. Nieto, rendered an
Order on February 19, 2005  ordering the CARP coverage of Lots Nos.
21 

3664 and 3843. Pursuant to the Order of RD Nieto, the following entries
were annotated on the back of TCT Nos. TCT No. 154516-R and TCT
No. 154515-R:
1.         Entry No. 1828 — REQUEST TO ISSUE
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IN THE NAME OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. — REQUEST from DAR
executed by Rodolfo S. Pangilinan that a portion of
54.9141 has. described herein is transferred to the
Republic of the Philippines. Wherefore, this title partially
cancelled, as per deed on file in this office.
            Date
of Doc. 9-20-2005
Date of Insc. 9-22-2005
2.         Entry No. 5132 — Subd. Plan Psd-03-14477 (AR)
approved by the DENR in favor of Inocencio Galang, et al.,
for with an area of 130,7999 square meters for the
registration of the CLOAs awarded to deserving Farmer-
Beneficiaries pursuant to CA 539 & RA 1500 in accordance
with administrative Order No. 3, series of 1990. Wherefore,
this title is partially cancelled.
            <table
of CLOA Numbers, Corresponding FB, Area,
TCT Number and Lot Number>
            Date
of Doc. 5-17-2005
Date of Insc. 9-22-2005 at 4:05 p.m.
3.         Entry No. 5388 — Subd. Plan, Psd-03-148210 (AR)
approved by the DENR in favor of Rafael Manalo et al for
the subd., of the parcel land herein described and covered
by this title with an area of 743,443 square meters, for the
registration of CLOAs awarded to the deserving farmer-
beneficiaries pursuant to CA 539 & RA 1400 in accordance
with administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990. Wherefore
this title is partially cancelled.
            <table
of CLOA Numbers, Corresponding FB, Area,
TCT Number and Lot Number>
            Date
of Inst. — 10-4-05
Date of Insc. — 12-21-05 at 3:00 p.m.
4.         Entry No. 5389 — Subd. Plan, Psd-03-144771 (AR)
approved by the DENR in favor of Inocencio Galang, et al.,
for the subd. Of the parcel of land herein described and
covered by this title with an area of not indicated on plan,
for the registration of CLOA awarded to deserving farmer
beneficiaries pursuant to CA 539 & RA 1400 in accordance
with administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1990, Wherefore
this title is partially cancelled and CLOA TCT No. 19039,
with an area of 15,415 square meters with Lot # KK in the
name of June M. Jacinto is issued.
            Date
of Inst. — 5-17-05
Date of Insc. — 12-21-05 at 3:00 p.m.
5.         Entry No. 8379/Vol. 89/T-3:30 p.m. — REQUEST
by Arnel S. Dizon Prov'. Agrarian Officer, to the portion of
 73.1571 has., is transferred in the name of the Republic of
the Philippines, pursuant to RA 6657.
            Date
of Inst. — 12-21-05
Date of Insc. — 12-21-05
On June 3, 2005, Spouses Mallari appealed the Order dated
February 19, 2005 to the DAR Secretary, reiterating their claim that
Lots No. 3664 and 3843 were exempted from CARP due to the prior
reclassification thereof by the HSRC, now the HLURB. On December
14, 2005, former DAR Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman promulgated
an Order  declaring the exemption of 96.1095 hectares of Lot No.
22 

3664. The remaining area of Lot No. 3664, including the 0.6388
hectares of Lot No. 3843, was declared covered under CARP.
Thereafter, the twin motions for reconsideration separately filed by
Spouses Mallari and Rafael Manalo, et al., including PNB's
manifestation and motion to intervene were denied by Secretary
Pangandaman in his Order  dated 04 December 2006. Spouses Mallari
23 

appealed to the Office of the President (OP). In a Decision  dated 24 

October 28, 2008, Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita modified the

Order dated December 14, 2005 by ordering the exemption of the
entire area of Lot No. 3664 (130.7999 hectares); it, however, affirmed
the DAR Order in all other respects. No appeal was taken from the OP
Decision; thus, it became final and executory as evidenced by an Order
of Finality  dated September 25, 2009.
25 

On June 4, 2010, Spouses Mallari filed a Petition  for 26 

Cancellation of the ninety-seven (97) CLOAs that were issued to herein

respondents. Certified true copies of the CLOAs and their
corresponding TCTs were attached to the Petition.  Summons were27 

duly served upon the respondents  together with the Notice of Hearing
28 

on June 10, 2010.

On July 17, 2010, the fifty-eight (58) respondents filed their
Answer,  where they made qualified admissions of the averments in
29 

the Petition. Respondents qualifiedly admitted the existence of the

Redemption Case but argued that the adverse ruling in the Redemption
Case does not bar CARP coverage of the subject property. They also
admitted the allegations raised with respect to the Ejectment Case but
claimed that their due identification and award as FBs of the subject
property rendered the judgment reached in the Ejectment Case moot,
the respondents now being the owners of the properties covered by
their respective CLOAs. With respect to the identification and issuance
of CLOAs in their favor, the respondents claimed that the Order dated
February 19, 2005 by RD Nieto was rendered final and executory for
failure of the Spouses Mallari to file a timely Motion for Reconsideration
or Appeal questioning the said Order. They likewise questioned the
jurisdiction of the Office of the Secretary to issue the Order dated
December 14, 2005, considering that the Order of RD Nieto had
already become final and executory.
By way of special and affirmative defenses, the respondents
argued that Spouses Mallari had no cause of action to seek the
cancellation of the subject CLOAs as the said lands were never
reclassified from their prior status as agricultural lands. As the lands
remained agricultural, they were properly within the coverage of CARP,
and thus, the CLOAs issued in their favor were clearly valid. They
further argued that the action to question such CLOAs had prescribed,
invoking the principle of indefeasibility of titles. Furthermore, they
claimed that there was no valid reclassification done by the HLURB as
the Spouses Mallari were not the lawful owners of the property when
they filed for the clearances to develop the same. They also claimed
that the action for consignation filed by the Spouses Mallari before the
RTC of Quezon City smacks of forum shopping and is invalid
considering that there was no prior Order issued by the RTC of San
Fernando City denying the previous motion of the Spouses Mallari to
compel PNB to accept the payment they tendered for the properties.
Likewise, they argued that their right to due process were violated, as
no copy of the appeal was furnished to them. As such, they argued that
the Decision of the OP could not have attained finality. Lastly, they
reiterated the validity of their CLOAs, having been issued after the due
coverage of the subject property under CARP.
On November 8, 2010, the DAR Undersecretary for Legal Affairs
issued an Order   remanding the case to the DAR Regional Office III,
30

and directed the Spouses Mallari to amend their Petition to implead the
Register of Deeds of Pampanga in accordance with DAR Administrative
Order No. 3, Series of 2009.
On November 12, 2010, Spouses Mallari filed their amended
Petition  in conformity with the aforesaid Order. A copy of the Amended
31 

Petition was personally served on the Register of Deeds of Pampanga

on November 12, 2010.  On November 17, 2010, the Register of
32 

Deeds of Pampanga filed a Manifestation  that it will abide with any

33 

decision or order that may be rendered by this office. On November 24,

2010, Atty. Odgie Cayabyab, Chief of DAR Legal Division for Region III,
issued his Investigation Report and elevated the records of the case to
the DAR Secretary for resolution.
Despite the magnitude of the subject property involved and the
numerous legal complexities surrounding this case, the sole issue to be
resolved by this Office is whether or not there is a sufficient legal
ground to warrant the cancellation of the CLOAs in question.
Upon a careful deliberation on the facts of this case and the
prevailing law on the matter, this Office finds the instant Petition to be
impressed with merit.
The records show that the instant case was filed on June 4,
2010;  hence, the resolution of this case is clearly governed by DAR
34 

Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 3, Series of 2009. Under Section 4,

Rule II thereof, the valid causes of action for the cancellation of a
CLOA, EP, or other title issued under the agrarian reform program are
the following:
(a)       The land subject matter of the CLOA, EP or other
title under agrarian reform program is found to be:
1.         The retention area of the landowner;
 2.         Excluded from the coverage of CARP, PD
No. 27 or other agrarian reform program;
3.         Exempted from the coverage of CARP, PD
No. 27 or other agrarian reform program;
4.         Outside of the authority of the DAR to
dispose and award as the same falls within the
authority of the DENR to distribute;
5.         Consist in the erroneous issuance of the said
title resulting from the defect or lack in
documentation (DNYP or DNYD generated titles but
not yet distributed).
(b)       The CLOA or EP holder is found to have:
1.         Misused or diverted the financial and support
services;
2.         Misused the land;
3.         Materially misrepresented his basic
qualifications as agrarian reform beneficiary;
4.         Illegally converted into other uses the
awarded land;
5.         Sold, transferred, conveyed the awarded
land to other person;
6.         Defaulted in the payment of obligation for
three (3) consecutive years in the case of Voluntary
Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme;
7.         Failed to pay the amortization for at least
three (3) annual amortizations;
8.         Neglected or abandoned the awarded land;
and
9.         Circumvented the laws related to the
implementation of the agrarian reform program.
(emphasis supplied)
The said A.O. also provides that a final and executory order from
the DAR Secretary, his authorized representative, or the courts that any
of the foregoing grounds exist is required as a condition sine quo
non for the filing of a petition for cancellation of CLOAs, EPs, or other
titles issued pursuant to the agrarian reform program.
The petitioners Spouses Mallari have complied with this
requirement. The records reveal that Lot No. 3664 was found to be
exempt from CARP coverage pursuant to the Decision dated October
28, 2008, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal of
protestants-appellants is hereby GRANTED. The Order dated
14 December 2005, of DAR is hereby MODIFIED, exempting
from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, the entire Lot No. 3664 embraced under TCT No.
 154516-R with an area of 130.7999 hectares located in
Barangay Maimpis, San Fernando City, Pampanga.
In all other respects, the DAR Order is hereby
AFFIRMED.
This Decision already became final and executory pursuant to the
Order of Finality   dated September 25, 2009. Verily, the Spouses
35

Mallari have established that they have a cause of action to cause the
cancellation of the CLOAs in question.
It must be stressed that, like EPs, the mere issuance of a CLOA
does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond
attack and scrutiny.  This is because CLOAs are similar to EPs, being
36 

titles issued under the agrarian reform program. There is no provision

of law that provides that EPs or CLOAs may no longer be cancelled
even after issuance. Notwithstanding the protection of indefeasibility of
titles which is likewise extended to certificates of title issued under the
agrarian reform program, EPs or CLOAs may be corrected or cancelled
for violations of agrarian laws, rules, and regulations.  Thus, DAR A.O.
37 

No. 2, Series of 1994, which was later superseded by DAR A.O. No. 3,
Series of 2009, was promulgated by DAR enumerating the grounds for
the cancellation of registered EPs or CLOAs. As adverted to above, the
determination that the land is exempted from CARP is a ground for
cancellation of CLOAs. The rationale for such consequence is because
lands exempted from CARP coverage should not have been placed
under CARP coverage in the first place; thus, any EP or CLOA issued
pursuant thereto is fatally defective which justifies its cancellation.
In Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform,  the38 

Supreme Court succinctly held that lands reserved for, or converted to,
non-agricultural uses by government agencies other than the
Department of Agrarian Reform, prior to the effectivity of Republic Act
No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL), are not considered and treated as agricultural lands, and
are therefore, outside the ambit of said law. The ruling in Natalia was
not confined solely to agricultural lands located within townsite
reservations, but applied also to real estate converted to non-
agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL, provided the
conversion was made by government agencies other than the DAR —
like the HLURB and its predecessor, the HSRC.  This doctrine has
39 

been affirmed by succeeding cases decided by the High Court:

in Pasong Bayabas Farmers Association, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals,  Junio v. Garilao,  and De Guzman v. Court of Appeals. 
40  41  42

The case of  Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association v.

Nicolas  applies four-square to the case at bar. In that case, a parcel of
43 

land owned by the Philippine Banking Corporation (Philbanking) was

placed under CARP coverage which resulted in the issuance of CLOAs
in favor of FBs. The award of the landholding to agrarian reform
beneficiaries was questioned by assignees of Philbanking on the
ground that the land was exempted from CARP as the land had been
reclassified to residential by the local government and the HLURB
Regional Office prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. In sustaining
the judgment of the Court of Appeals which declared the land exempt
from CARP and ordered the cancellation of the CLOAs issued by DAR,
the Supreme Court cited with approval the doctrine in Natalia as
affirmed by the cases of  Pasong Bayabas and Junio, thus:
We agree with the CA that the facts obtaining in this case are
similar to those in Natalia Realty. Both subject lands form part of
an area designated for non-agricultural purposes. Both were
classified as non-agricultural lands prior to June 15, 1988, the
date of effectivity of the CARL.
In Natalia, the land was within a town site area for the Lungsod
Silangan Reservation by virtue of Proclamation No. 1637
(1979). The developers of the land were granted preliminary
approval and clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory
Commission (HSRC) to establish a subdivision in the area.
Sometime after, the DAR sought to have the land included in
the coverage of the CARL. The developer protested. On appeal,
this Court held that lands previously converted by government
agencies to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the
CARL are outside its coverage. Government agencies include
the HSRC and its successor, the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB).
In the case under review, the subject parcels of lands were
reclassified within an urban zone as per approved Official
Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Davao. The
reclassification was embodied in City Ordinance No. 363, Series
of 1982. As such, the subject parcels of land are considered
"non-agricultural" and may be utilized for residential,
commercial, and industrial purposes. The reclassification was
later approved by the HLURB.
Contrary to what petitioners think, the Natalia ruling was not
confined solely to agricultural lands located within townsite
reservations. It is also applicable to other agricultural lands
converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the
CARL. This is subject to the condition that the conversion was
made with the approval of government agencies like the
HLURB.
Notwithstanding the character of the OP Decision as final and
executory, its validity may still be subject to attack as the law provides
for three (3) remedies to set aside a final and executory judgment. In
the case of Arcelona v. Court of Appeals,  the Supreme Court held:
44 

It is clear then that to set aside a final and executory judgment,

there are three remedies available to a litigant: first, a petition
for relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court on
grounds of fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence
filed within sixty (60) days from the time petitioner learns of the
judgment but not more than six (6) months from the entry
thereof; second, a direct action to annul the judgment on the
ground of extrinsic fraud; and third, a direct action
for certiorari or collateral attack to annul a judgment that is void
upon its face or void by virtue of its own recitals.
The defense of the respondents that the OP Decision does not
bind them constitutes a collateral attack to annul a judgment. An attack
is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an
attack on the judgment is nevertheless made as incident thereof.  Such
45 

an attack can only prosper if the judgment sought to be implemented is

void upon its face or void by virtue of its own recitals, otherwise the
proper remedy would be by way of a direct attack through a petition for
relief from judgment under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court or byway of a
petition for certiorari.  In this case, it is clear from a simple perusal of
46 

the OP Decision that the judgment promulgated therein is not void on

its face or by virtue of its own recitals; hence, the collateral attack must
necessarily fail.
The claim also of the respondents that the Decision of the OP
dated October 28, 2008 does not bind them for the alleged violation of
their right to due process does not impress. First, it appears from the
records of this case that the respondents, or their respective
predecessors-in-interest, were duly furnished with copies of the Orders
promulgated by Secretary Pangandaman dated 14 December 2005 and
04 December 2006. They did not file any appeal to assail the Orders of
Secretary Pangandaman. Hence, the said Orders already attained
finality insofar as they are concerned. It was only the petitioners who
elevated the Order on appeal to OP, while the respondents slept on
their rights. Respondents' claim that their right to due process was
violated is clearly not supported by the records. In fact, the contrary
appears to be the case, as it sufficiently appears that they were duly
informed of the status of the case at every stage thereof. Furthermore,
the promulgation of the Order by the OP carries with it the presumption
that the government employees performed their duty of furnishing a
copy of the Decision to the respondents. The respondents herein failed
to rebut such a presumption by at least submitting substantial evidence
to corroborate their claim.
It bears stressing that the denial of due process is a serious
allegation that must be accompanied by evidence sufficient to convince
a reasonable mind to support such a conclusion. Paraphrasing the
words of the eminent Justice Isagani Cruz, this Office is not unaware of
the practice of some who, lacking plausible support for their position,
simply claim a denial of due process as if it were a universal absolution.
The ground will prove unavailing, and not surprisingly, since it is
virtually only a pro forma argument. Due process is not to be bandied
like a slogan. It is not a mere catch-phrase. As the highest hallmark of
the free society, its name should not be invoked in vain but only when
justice has not been truly served. 47

Assuming that the claim of respondents that they were not

furnished a copy of the appeal and the decision of the OP was indeed
true, the records undeniably disclose that the OP decision was declared
final and executory pursuant to the Order of Finality dated 25
September 2009. When Spouses Mallari instituted this case for
cancellation of CLOAs on June 4, 2010 and summons were served to
the respondents on June 10, 2010, which is barely nine (9) months
after finality of the OP decision, the respondents were already aware
and informed of the issuance of OP decision and its declaration as final
and executory. They could have had instituted the available legal
remedies as discussed above, but unfortunately they opted not to take
any action to annul the OP decision; instead they remained complacent
with their argument that they are not bound by the said decision despite
clear knowledge of the same.
Unless the final decision of the OP has been annulled, this Office,
being a subordinate of the OP, has no recourse but to uphold its
validity. Moreover, under the doctrine of hierarchy of administrative
agency, a DAR Secretary, who is a mere alter ego of the President, has
no power and jurisdiction to set aside a final and executory decision of
the President.
Lastly, concerning the respondents' claim that the Office of the
Secretary has no jurisdiction to issue the Order dated December 14,
2005, considering that the Order of RD Nieto dated February 19, 2005
had already become final and executory, the same is also untenable. It
must be remembered that when the Order of RD Nieto was elevated on
appeal to OSEC by Spouses Mallari, the respondents actively
participated in the appeal proceedings. In fact, when Secretary
Pangandaman promulgated the Order dated December 14, 2005, the
respondents and even Spouses Mallari filed a separate motion for
reconsideration. However, when the twin motions for reconsideration
were denied, it was only Spouses Mallari who went up on appeal to the
OP. The active participation of the respondents in the appeal process
before the OSEC clearly constitutes respondents' submission to OSEC
jurisdiction. Henceforth, they cannot claim that the OSEC has no
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal of Spouses Mallari from the Order of
Director Nieto.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition is
hereby GRANTED. Order is hereby issued declaring the following
CLOAs as CANCELLED:
XXX

Furthermore, the Register of Deeds is hereby DIRECTED to

cancel Entry Nos. 1828, 5132, 5388, 5389 and 8379 that are annotated
on TCT No. 154516-R and REINSTATE TCT No. 154516-R.
SO ORDERED.
Diliman, Quezon City, March 10, 2011.

(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS

REYES
Secretary